Phil Hope: We are in fact exceeding those targets as a result of increasing investment in the Prison Service, and offenders now have more and longer opportunities to engage in education. During the day in prisons, there are not only education courses but, because of the way in which prisons are run, other learning opportunities to enable skills levels to be increased, such as catering and making things in workshops. Training and education is provided across the piece and is seen as an integral part of the way in which the Prison Service operates. We have delivered 18 of the recommendations in the Select Committee report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Four of them are long term and are being delivered as we speak, four others do not require any action—they were recommendations for others—and six we disagreed with.
	Our record on delivering the recommendations of that report—I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that it is a good analysis—suggests that we have made and are making real progress. As we build on the Green Paper this year, we will see further delivery of our commitment to improve education and training for prisoners, so that their chances of re-offending are reduced and they can get a job when they leave prison.

Helen Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post, and I also welcome the steps that the Government are taking to improve participation in further education. Will he consider the issue that I raised in a recent debate in Westminster Hall, which is the closure of some adult education courses that, without leading to qualifications in themselves, actually bring in to education adults who have no qualifications and who would not come through the college doors otherwise? Will he undertake to monitor that issue carefully and to learn from the success of adult and community learning in increasing the participation rates of those without any qualifications, so that we can get to those who are hardest to reach?

Kitty Ussher: What steps are being taken to improve skills within the child care work force.

David Taylor: Given the problems that the partially privatised Prison Service is experiencing in establishing an audit trail on foreign prisoners, does the Solicitor-General believe that the soon to be privatised probation service will have similar difficulties, as the ways in which it manages offenders in the community might compromise their human rights?

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General has been drawn out in his replies. He started by telling the House that he could not say what discussions he had been having with the Home Office about the operation of the probation service and then he became a bit more forthcoming. If it is correct that in the Rice case, for instance, there was a serious failure at an official level to understand how the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights ought to operate, meaning that officials wrongly failed to provide a proper degree of supervision ofMr. Rice. I assume that that is a matter of concern to the Law Officers. Although I would not expect a comment to be made on individual cases, may we have an assurance that this is an area in which the Law Officers are providing guidance to the Home Office and its relevant agencies on how to do their job properly and well within the scope of the ECHR?

Mike O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service will improve inter-agency working by delivering initiatives such as conditional cautioning, the prolific and priority offender scheme and prosecution team performance management. We will also develop programmes that are currently under way such charging; no witness, no justice; and the effective trial management programme.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in areas such as domestic violence, it is especially important that the Crown Prosecution Service trains and works closely with agencies such as Women's Aid, Victim Support and the probation service, so that women and children are made as safe as possible by a shared understanding of what domestic violence is and by the ability to share information?

Philip Hammond: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the safe delivery of his White Paper to the House. Frankly, there have been times over the past couple of months when we were not sure that it would see the light of day. We welcome the key elements of the package that he has just announced. The Conservative party fought the last election on a platform of a restoration of the earnings link to curb the growth of means-testing—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] We fought the last election on a platform of a restoration of the earnings link to curb the growth of means-testing—something that the Chancellor said at the time was unaffordable.
	We also welcome the package of measures that will address the unfairness suffered by women in the present system, but let us just take a moment to set the statement in context:
	"when Labour came to power we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest."
	Of course, those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—Labour's first Minister for Welfare Reform.
	Since 1997 the savings ratio has halved, and 9 million people in this country are not saving enough for their retirement. Some 60,000 occupational pension schemes, with more than 1 million members between them, have wound up or begun the process of winding up on Labour's watch. At least 125,000 people have lost some or all of their accrued pensions rights. Not all of that is the Government's fault—[Hon. Members: "Oh?"]—but the Chancellor's £5 billion a year tax raid on pension funds, the two reductions in the minimum funding requirement, the ever more complex regulatory regime and the pernicious affect of widespread means-testing on the savings culture are matters for which this Government are responsible, and that is the context of the statement today.
	I should like to join the Secretary of State's tribute to the work that the Pensions Commission has done. We do not agree with every detail of the commission's proposals, but the key recommendations of its report clearly point the way forward. Cross-party consensus is essential to a lasting pensions settlement. Long-term savers want long-term stability, which needs a guarantee that the pension regime will not change every time there is a general election. So it is bad news for Britain that the consensus building that the Government promised us on the back of the Turner report has been a victim of the internecine warfare between the neighbours in Downing street.
	It is bad news, too, that a degree of uncertainty has now been inserted into the equation by the Chancellor's insistence on the caveat that the restoration of the earnings link in 2012 is subject to some subjective tests of affordability. The start date for the restoration of the earnings link is pushed back into the next but one spending review—the fiscal equivalent of the long grass—and is subject to a get-out clause that reduces the very certainty about state benefits that was the cornerstone of the reform package that the White Paper was supposed to deliver. The Prime Minister's legacy is left to a decision that will not even be taken until the next Parliament. No wonder the Government are now so keen to build that cross-party consensus to which they have devoted no time over the past few months.
	We have set out our own five criteria by which we will judge the White Paper; they largely reflect the criteria that the Secretary of State has set out. Does it deliver pensioner dignity? Does it deliver fairness, not just between the generations and the sexes, but between different groups in society? Is it affordable?  [ Interruption. ] Is it simple enough for people to understand? Perhaps most importantly of all, does it underpin self-reliance through the promotion of saving?  [ Interruption. ] I am glad that the Chancellor is having such a good time this afternoon.
	On the basis of what the Secretary of State said and an initial trawl through the White Paper, we have a number of detailed concerns, which I will address—but first I want to say something about affordability. We share the Government's determination that the proposed settlement must be affordable and sustainable. No party that seriously aspires to be in government when these changes take effect can take any risk with the public finances or the stability of the economy.
	Conservative Members will certainly not make promises that we cannot deliver, but if there is to be an affordability test, there must be transparency about the cost and the financing of the package of measures in the White Paper. Without transparency, affordability will remain a matter for the Chancellor's subjective judgment. Given the challenge of longevity, change is essential, and I believe that the British people will be willing to shoulder the burden of change, provided that it is fairly distributed—but if change is not seen to be fair, it will not be durable.
	This package will improve the situation of women with broken contribution records and those who have committed time to caring responsibilities—we very much welcome that—but is it fair that a women who retires one day before the changes take effect should spend the rest of her life living on a partial basic state pension, while her neighbour who retires a month later with the same contribution record will have a full basic state pension? Is it fair that tucked away in the small print is a provision that will freeze the maximum state second pension at today's level, but will not freeze the contributions that people pay towards that pension? That issue has been neither properly understood nor properly debated.
	The Secretary of State has said nothing at all about public sector pensions. Can the Government really look the British public in the eye and tell them they have to work until they are 68 to gain their basic state pension rights, when the Government have cravenly surrendered to pressure from public sector unions and agreed to their demands for retirement at the age of 60 on a full final salary indexed pension for the next40 years?
	Public sector workers deserve fair treatment, just as everybody else does, but median public sector pay is now higher than private sector pay and growing faster, and public sector workers are benefiting from the increase in life expectancy. They, too, must share in shouldering the burden of adjustment. In the interests of fairness, the Government must reopen the public sector pensions debate. We cannot be bound by a deal based on favours, not fairness.
	The acid test of this package is the extent to which it promotes saving. The proposals that we have heard about today will halt the growth of means-testing, but only after another six years of expansion. It is far from clear to us that, with 30 to 45 per cent. of the pensioner population remaining within means-tested benefits, savings behaviour will change, as is required to deliver the Government's objectives.
	There is also a huge concern that the introduction of the auto-enrolled state-sponsored scheme along the lines of the national pension savings scheme, together with the abolition of contracted-out rebates, will be the death knell of many more generous occupational pension schemes. I hope that the Secretary of State can confirm that the Government are committed to a review of the regulations around occupational schemes that will support them and make them less onerous for employers to develop.
	We will support the NPSS proposal, including the proposed compulsory employer contributions, because we believe that that will help to ensure that saving pays, but we need to hear the Secretary of State say very clearly that that cannot be at the expense of Britain's economic competitiveness, and that as employers pay those contributions on behalf of their employees over time, that will be reflected in slightly lower pay increases, as remuneration is transferred from cash wages to pension contributions. That is essential to ensuring the affordability of those proposals.
	Finally, I want to refer to the Secretary of State's announcement on the financial assistance scheme. We welcome the broadening of the eligibility criteria, although there is no indication of the cost of that or of how it will be funded.
	Will the Secretary of State also tell the House what he will do to ensure that the financial assistance scheme works more effectively? In its first year, it has managed to pay out less than £127,000 to fewer than 50 beneficiaries while spending more than £5 million on administration. This is a question not just of broadening the criteria or of pouring extra money in, but of reforming the system to make it work more effectively.
	The White Paper has been long awaited and will be widely welcomed. Whatever our separate party political motivations, it is now our duty as elected representatives—all of us here—to do what is right for the long-term interests of Britain. In this case, that involves building that cross-party consensus, however late in the day it is to start that process. We are willing to engage in that process, if the Government are now, at last, willing to do so with us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are complicated matters, and the Front-Bench spokesmen understandably took quite a long time to ask their questions. A good many hon. Members are attempting to catch my eye. I ask for one brief question from each Member, and the briefest possible answers from the Secretary of State. If need be, I might interrupt Members if they go on for too long.

Edward Leigh: It is easy for politicians to make promises today that have to be paid for by electors tomorrow. Does the Secretary of State think that it is important that the younger generation are reminded about how much these proposals will cost? Assuming that they are introduced in 2012, what will be the cumulative cost of the restoration of the earnings link in its first 50 years of operation?

Richard Burden: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend? There are many positive elements in the package that he has presented, and I especially welcome the substantial extension to the financial assistance scheme, which will be of great importance to my constituents and others who have worked at Kalamazoo. I understand that he cannot say precisely how many people will be effected by the extension, but they will want to be assured that the matter will be kept under review in the future. Finally, may I add my voice to those who have stressed the importance of speeding up the administration of the scheme? Some people have immediate needs, and it is important that they are addressed now.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House do now adjourn— [Jonathan Shaw.]

David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate, especially given that the earlier statement on pensions makes this an important day for all of us.
	I want to speak about four matters that are important to my constituency, but I shall begin with an international problem that has not yet received a sufficient airing in this place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench this afternoon, will refer it to his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and in the Foreign Office.
	Last Monday, the European Parliament decided to allow the fishing deal between the EU and Morocco, which involves the waters off the western Sahara, to go ahead. As an issue, it does not arouse the same level of interest or raise the same hackles as the many and varied conflicts in the middle east, parts of Africa, south-east Asia or South America. However, the UN promised people in the western Sahara that there would be a referendum on their territorial independence. They have waited a long time, and it still has not happened. That is a disgrace.
	To rub salt into the wound, the fish in the sea around the western Sahara—one of the area's most important resources—are about to be gobbled up by trawlermen from Spain and other EU countries. Thankfully, it is unlikely that British trawlermen will be involved, as we have so few left. The people of the western Sahara feel that they have been sold out.
	I and other hon. Members have asked questions about the matter, and I have been dismayed to discover that the Government seem to take the view that, as long as the deal did not break international law or make a huge impact on the numbers of fish in the sea in that part of the world, there were no grounds to object to what the EU was planning.
	Another problem has to do with the advice given to British Members of the European Parliament. I do not want to be party political, but Labour MEPs either did not vote or chose not to vote against the scheme, even though the vote represented an opportunity to express the clear position that the Government have adopted in respect of the western Sahara. Unless I am mistaken, that opportunity was not taken. The people in the western Sahara have been sold out by the international community for a generation or more and, as well as speaking words of support for them, we should put those words into action.
	I turn now to the four local issues that I want to raise. I shall be brief, as I know that there are lots of other hon. Members who want to speak in the debate. First of all, there is currently a lot of talk about how we can make greater use of renewable energy sources. I am a great advocate of renewables, but the idea of building a barrage across the river Severn has recently been put back on the agenda by the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly. He is a member of my party and a friend of mine, and has said that it is time for the scheme to be reappraised. I do not mind a review of the decision made some years ago.
	The original feasibility study started in the 1970s and carried on until the 1990s. I tried to struggle through all the different papers and the volumes of evidence, and I have two quick comments to make. First, there were strong environmental downsides to building a Severn barrage. The colossal proposal might cater for about25 per cent. of our energy needs, but not least of the downsides was the irretrievable damage to the flora and fauna of the river Severn. Secondly, I am a strong supporter of the so-called nuclear option, as hon. Members may know, but in some quarters it is ruled out as being the wrong approach because of its sheer scale and the fact that it is designed to pump electricity into the national grid when what we want is microgeneration. I agree that we need microgeneration. The Severn barrage is a colossal scheme, paid for not necessarily by the public sector, but largely by the private sector. The come-back of that will be massive development, largely of housing, which will have a big impact on Stroud.
	Local government reform is back on the agenda. We may all be tempted to yawn at the prospect of ritual sacrifice and to believe that whatever we say and do, nothing much will happen. I hope that on this occasion something will happen, because it is about time that Gloucestershire moved to some sort of unitary arrangement, especially given that those areas with unitary arrangements seem to have better, simpler local government. I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to pass my views on to the new Department for Communities and Local Government. If we are to be serious about local government reform, please can we make sure that the proposals are properly aired and that we consider the benefits, not just the faults, of the proposals. A return to the status quo is unacceptable.
	I see advantages for Gloucestershire becoming a two-authority county, although there are arguments for one authority. The current arrangement of six districts and one county lead to great confusion. We must ensure that that confusion is put to bed once and for all and that we give people the service that they deserve. Health cuts mean that that requirement is greater than ever, because we desperately need to clarify the relationship between social services and health provision.

Paul Holmes: I, too, have one or two issues to raise in this Adjournment debate. Although they are based on constituency examples, each one is part of a national trend. I am sure that hon. Members present will nod in recognition of the issue that they too have in their constituency. They may disagree on how to deal with the problem, but almost everyone present will share it.
	The first one is in connection with the national health service. Tomorrow I have my usual Friday afternoon constituency surgery. One of the people who has booked in to see me is a ward sister from Chesterfield's Royal hospital. She is one of 133 people in her position at the hospital who were summoned in on Tuesday last week to be told by hospital management that their jobs were being restructured and that they could all reapply for them, but that over the next few months one third of them would lose their jobs. In short, 43 ward sisters are going to be made redundant. The hospital is well run, and hopes to manage the process without too much stress and pain by absorbing the cuts in its normal nursing staff turnover of 8 per cent. a year, through natural wastage and turnover rather than compulsory redundancies, although in the end that method may have to be used. None the less, 43 ward sisters will lose their jobs in Chesterfield over the next year.
	The hospital is undertaking a similar exercise by making an analysis of other staff sectors to try to shed jobs to save money. The House can imagine the trauma facing 133 ward sisters who have been told that a third of them will lose their jobs and that more job cuts will follow in other parts of the hospital.
	Why is the hospital in that position? It seems to have done everything that the Government wanted since 1997. The hospital became a trust. I do not support trusts; I opposed the hospital's move to trust status at the time, for the same reasons that I opposed the concept of school trusts in the Education and Inspections Bill. Introducing free-market, cut-throat competition is not the way to improve or deliver health services or to educate our children. However, my local hospital became a trust, as the Government wanted, and it has been incredibly successful.
	In each of the past three years, the hospital was awarded three stars by the Government—the top rating. Last year, it was also commended as the top hospital in the east midlands—the best in five counties. Since 1997, it has done everything that the Government wanted, so the job losses that are being imposed are not the fault of the hospital management nor of the excellent NHS staff who are hitting every target, even after the introduction of competition. The chief executive told me recently about the worry of losing patients to NHS providers elsewhere and to private sector treatment centres such as the one at Barlborough, just outside my constituency.
	The hospital has made further improvements in departments that were already doing extremely well, such as ophthalmology. It can now treat more patients, to the benefit of the Chesterfield Royal but at the expense of other hospitals in the area which will lose patients and income, and thus face even greater problems, which is why I opposed trusts in the first place.
	The hospital has done everything it was asked, and done it extremely well, yet now people will have to be sacked, and services for the people of Chesterfield will be reduced. Why? The hospital was expecting a cut of 1.7 per cent. in the tariff for providing medical services; in effect, that was the Gershon efficiency review saving that public bodies in general, including my local council, were expected to make on a yearly basis. However, at the last minute the calculations were abandoned and the Government told the hospital that the tariff reduction, or the cut in funding, would be2.5 per cent. Even worse than that last-minute increase in the deficit, the hospital was told that there would be a special technical adjustment to the tariff of another 2.5 per cent. In the space of only three or four weeks, a good, well-funded, well-organised and efficient hospital went from planning for a managed efficiency saving of 1.7 per cent. to trying to cope with a 5 per cent. cut in its funding.
	That situation has been mirrored across the country, on a much bigger scale in some areas. Figures released today show that 12,000 job losses have been announced in the NHS since 1 March alone, which makes the 43 announced so far in Chesterfield look quite small, although it is no comfort to those who are losing their jobs in Chesterfield that health trusts elsewhere, including areas close to Derbyshire, are suffering much greater losses imposed at only a few weeks' notice.
	The situation is the result of the Government's rushed introduction of market-based competition and their insistence on hospitals hitting centrally imposed targets on waiting lists, whatever the financial cost. Trusts are reaping the whirlwind because they have overspent in various sectors to enable the Government to hit their targets. Reform has been forced through at breakneck pace to hit the appropriate media headlines and to help create the Prime Minister's legacy.
	The same is happening in other parts of the NHS, such as dentistry. A stream of people have visited my constituency surgeries or written to me over recent months to tell me that it is impossible to find a dental practice in Chesterfield that will take on new NHS patients. After the introduction of the new contract, several dentists have completely opted out and no longer treat NHS patients. About half the people of Chesterfield were not enrolled with an NHS dentist and the figures have got worse over the past two months. It appears that they will get even worse over the next year. Again, that situation is common throughout the country.
	It is time for a long-term, sensible planning regime in the health service, rather than emergency cuts. We should put a brake on this disastrous process and pause a while to consider what is being done to the NHS. Meanwhile, NHS staff in Chesterfield and elsewhere need reassurance about the job losses they face at present, and those in the pipeline for later in the year, which threaten them even though they are absolutely blameless and have done everything asked of them by the Government.

Paul Holmes: There are different costs in different parts of the country, although there is weighting in the system to take account of wage rates; for example, in London and Derbyshire. There must be some variations. The point I was making is that NHS reforms must be carefully planned to ensure stability. In Germany, where the health service took a similar road, the process took 18 years, yet we are trying to do it in no more than 18 months. To make the NHS—the largest single employer in Europe—a more efficient organisation, we need to look at local accountability and decision making rather than jumping at the behest of centrally imposed targets from Whitehall. That is not the way to run the health service, the police service, the Home Office or many other Departments of State.
	Council housing is a major issue in my constituency, as it is in many parts of the country, although it takes different guises, because, as a result of Government policy, many councils no longer control it. Every week, people contact my surgery or my Chesterfield office about the problems of finding social housing. Two age extremes typify the problem. There are young families with children who want a house. They may be living with parents or friends and as children come along the situation becomes impossible. They may be living in one-bedroom council flats on the first or second floor, which is wholly unsuitable for children, so they want a family house. They cannot afford to buy or rent in the private sector so they want a council house.
	At the other age extreme are pensioners or people approaching pensionable age. They may be living in council flats. I know one couple who were the first occupants of a brand new flat on a new council estate in the early 1960s. They still live there, but their flat is on the top floor, so what was suitable for them when they were young—they had no children—is no longer suitable now that they are in their 70s. They suffer from arthritis and they have noisy young neighbours with a different lifestyle. They want to move to an old people's bungalow.
	The problem for the council is that it no longer has bungalows or family houses to offer. Were it not for the right-to-buy policy, Chesterfield would have 19,000 council properties; there are actually fewer than 10,000 and the number is falling each year. I have never objected to the right-to-buy policy. I was elected to Chesterfield council in 1987 and was a member of the housing committee. Labour councillors were furious about Margaret Thatcher's right-to-buy policy, which had just been introduced. As I said to them, I could not understand why they were so angry. If they had thought of the policy of using public money to build social housing and allowing people who had lived in those houses for five, 10 or 15 years to cash that in as a discount and buy a house—something that those people would never have been able to afford to do under normal conditions—I would have seen that as a good piece of socialist engineering to give people access to the property market and property ownership. I have been told since—I discovered this only this year—that the Labour party was considering that in the late 1970s, but ruled it out of the manifesto as being unacceptable. How things have changed.
	The problem with the right-to-buy policy from the 1980s and now is that the money is not invested back into providing more social housing. In Chesterfield, for example, 75 per cent. of the money from each right-to-buy purchase is taken away by the Government to spend elsewhere—or disappears into the Chancellor's coffers—rather than being invested in providing more social housing. Since 1997, there have been 600,000 right to buys across the country and the waiting list for council housing has gone up by—hon. Members have guessed it—a nice symmetrical 600,000 to the nearest round thousand. Those seem the social housing provision polices of the madhouse. Right to buy can provide social mobility and access to the property market, but the money must be reinvested if we are to avoid major problems.
	The Government's answer is to force tenants across the country to leave the tender mercies of the council and have a registered social landlord, a housing association or a private finance initiative landlord—in other words, to privatise in one form or another. That costs more in the long run—just like PFI builds for schools and hospitals—because taxpayers foot the vast bulk of the bill and because people in the private or semi-private sectors borrow more expensively. However, it gets the money off the public sector borrowing requirement. It is a nice piece of voodoo economics or voodoo accountancy to massage the public spending figures. It is a piece of nonsense that is sold to us as choice.
	When I have raised the matter in debates, in Prime Minister's Question Time and in private meetings with Ministers, I have been told over and over again that I should celebrate choice. I do celebrate choice. One area where I part company from some of my fellow members of the Defend Council Housing group in Parliament, of which I am the vice-chair, is that some of them would say that there should be no privatisation or opting out of council properties. As a teenager, I grew up on one of the biggest council estates in Europe, in Sheffield, and I can see that some council tenants in some parts of the country might well feel that their council has made such an appalling job of running their estate that they would rather have a different landlord. However, the vast majority do not feel like that and the vast majority of councils that have moved over to this system have done so because the Government put a gun to their head or because they faced Hobson's choice. Essentially, the decision is sold as, "You privatise, or you do not get your house repaired." That is the choice that is being presented. I cannot understand the logic of a Labour Government who go down that route.
	Of course, once one has gone down that route there is no going back. If the people of Chesterfield do not like the way in which the council is running the 10,000, 12,000, 15,000 or 19,000 council houses at any one time, they can change the management. They did in 2003: they elected the Liberal Democrats. People can change the situation; that is what democracy is about. However, once they have gone down the road of having a housing association or a PFI landlord, that is it. There is no coming back. There is no accountability with those landlords, especially when a small housing association merges with another and another and becomes a big national organisation instead of the small, local, friendly, housing association that was sold to people in the first place.
	Then there is the limited amount of money that the Government allow to be distributed into social housing via councils. What happens in that case? This has been mentioned in meetings we have had with Ministers. Of course, there is a limited amount of money and it is rationed. However, it is not rationed fairly according to which councils have the greatest need. The Government basically say, "Well, in the case of the hundred or so councils where tenants have voted not to privatise, that's tough. You do not get anything. You have voted and made your choice and we are going punish you. You don't get the cash." The ones that go half way down the road and have an arm's length management organisation will get what limited cash is still available via the Government.
	That is no way to allocate the limited funds that are available for public sector housing through council provision. Of course, money is always short and has to be rationed and spent over a number of years, but that money should be allocated on the basis of the need of places such as Chesterfield, Birmingham, Cambridge, Camden and the other areas that have said that they do not want to privatise. The money should be allocated according to need, not according to whether people are willing to have an ALMO or whether they take the democratic choice to stay with the council.
	What happens to rents in some parts of the country? In Chesterfield last year, not only did the Government take £6 million away from Chesterfield council tenants in right-to-buy receipts that went off into the Chancellor's coffers, they took £3.2 million from their rents to spend in other parts of the country. When I raised that with the Minister, he said, "Oh, but we only do that to affluent Tory shires." I had to point out that Chesterfield is not an affluent Tory shire. It is a working class coalfield community, except that, since 1992, there have been no coal mines left. It is a working class community that had lots of engineering and steel works—except they have almost entirely gone, as well. It is a community that had much higher than average unemployment. That is coming down, but it is still higher than average to this day. It has many social problems. It is not an affluent Tory shire. However,£3.2 million is taken away from council tenants' rents in Chesterfield ever year—last year, the year before, the year before that, and next year—to spend elsewhere.
	To my horror, I discovered that some of that money is going via the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,as was, to provide infrastructure in London forthe Olympic games. Why are council tenants in Chesterfield seeing their rents go into that sort of spending? If Chesterfield borough council were allowed to keep half that money every year, it could provide the old age pensioners' bungalows to allow old pensioners to move out of family council houses, which would free them up for young people with children.

Diane Abbott: I wish to raise one constituency matter and two international matters. The constituency matter on which I shall address the House is gun, knife and gang-related crime. The whole House will have read in the newspapers last week about the tragic stabbing of Kiyan Prince in north London. We in Hackney are familiar with the aftershock of such crime because in 2004, 16-year-old Robert Levy was stabbed to death by a 15-year-old.
	I wish to say a few words about the matter because the problem with both gun and knife crime is that, when there is an especially spectacular incident, it is all over the papers for a day or two, but then people forget about it. However, the problem is ongoing. There is a rising tide of incidents in the inner city. The problem does not just affect London, because the number of incidents of gun, knife and gang-related crime is increasing in urban areas throughout the country.
	We need to be aware that knife crime and knife homicide is a schoolboy's crime because the peak age for knife crime is between 14 and 21. The idea of playground quarrels that would once have resulted in a bloody nose ending with someone bleeding to death in the gutter, like Kiyan Prince or Robert Levy, is tragic. Such tragedies are also avoidable.
	I praise the Government for the work that they have already done on knife crime. We are going to raise the age at which it is legal to carry a knife from 16 to 18. We will also give teachers more powers to search schoolchildren for weapons, and there is talk of experimenting with metal detectors in schools. All those measures will be important and helpful, but I stress that we will not have an impact on knife, gun and gang-related crime in the long run unless we address the youth culture in our inner cities. The saturation of that youth culture with music, videos and video games, all of which are riddled with violence, lies behind some of the shocking incidents, such as the stabbing of the young man in north London a few days ago. Welcome though law enforcement measures are, they will not alone solve the problem.
	In Hackney, in the aftermath of the stabbing of Robert Levy, the police and community made a tremendous effort to address the situation. The police went into schools to teach young people about the dangers of knives and set up all kinds of mentoring schemes to give young people alternatives to their malign role models on the street. Very often, young teenagers are mentored in the ways of violence and crime by older men, so the police in Hackney are targeting those people so that they can get them behind bars. Meanwhile, the police are trying to work with young people and support their parents so that they can be given a different value system from that of the street, violence and MTV. The Government need to address the problem through not only law enforcement measures, but resources for such long-term work with young people and parents, whether that is done through local authorities, or through partnerships among the police, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
	It is easy for hon. Members from other parts of the country to say, "We don't have the problem in my constituency. It is a localised thing in the inner city, so why should I concern myself with it?". I would say to that that we are seeing the type of gun crime that was once a feature of areas such as Brixton and Hackney in Nottingham, Yorkshire and as far afield as Aberdeen, so what those hon. Members see in the city of London today, they will see in other urban areas tomorrow.
	Some of the wards in London with the most serious problems relating to gun and knife-related crime are on the edge of what will be the footprint of the Olympic park. The idea that we will bring millions of people in 2012 into an area that has systemic problems with gun, knife and gang-related crime on its fringes could—I say only "could"—prove embarrassing to all of us. For the sake of the mother of Kiyan Prince, the parents of Robert Levy, a whole generation of young people growing up in our city and this country's reputation, we cannot afford to let gun and knife-related crime to be only the stuff of a few days' headlines before we all move on. We need sustainable work—both law enforcement and community work—that will help to save a generation of young boys who are being sucked up into a malign, lawless and violent culture.
	I want to raise the international issue of Guantanamo Bay. Hon. Members might say, "It's been there since 2002, so why should we talk about it again?" However, it is important to put it on record that, in the past week, important benchmarks have been set relating to the debate on Guantanamo Bay. First, the UN Committee against Torture has investigated Guantanamo Bay and concluded that the conditions there constitute torture. The Committee has also called for the camp to be closed down as soon as possible. We have also heard in the past few days that four detainees at Guantanamo have attempted to commit suicide, which gives the lie to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the regime there. Last but not least, our Attorney-General has taken the serious step of making a public speech saying that Guantanamo Bay should be closed as a matter of principle. Lord Goldsmith was swift to say that he was speaking in a personal capacity, and we must accept that, but when someone in his position with such a distinguished legal career steps up to condemn what is happening in Guantanamo, the House must listen. The Attorney-General is not the only person who has called for the closure of Guantanamo. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called for that, as have Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
	The problem with Guantanamo is partly what happens inside it, partly the dubious legal basis on which the Americans are holding the people and, finally, the negative effect that its very existence has on the war against terror. The Americans would argue that they are entitled to hold the people indefinitely without due process, as that would be internationally recognised, because they are at war. When it is suggested that, if the people are prisoners of war, they should be subject to the Geneva convention, the Americans refuse to accept that, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are holding the people because they are at war, yet refuse to accept that the Geneva convention applies.
	The Americans try to say that the conditions are fine and that the complaints of ex-detainees are unfounded, yet even the UN officials were not allowed to meet detainees without signing confidentiality agreements. Once the detainees actually leave Guantanamo—as did the British detainees, thankfully, due to the hard work of Lord Goldsmith and others—the stories that we hear about the treatment that they have endured are horrifying.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said earlier this week, the Government should facilitate a visit to Guantanamo by a delegation of British MPs. The Government should also do more for British residents who are not necessarily British nationals who find themselves interned in Guantanamo. I know that it is not the practice of Britain to offer consular services to people who are just British residents, but it is also not the practice of Britain to stand on the side while people are undergoing torture. International institution after international institution, culminating in the UN Committee against Torture, have said that conditions in Guantanamo are tantamount to torture.
	Tony Blair has to take advantage—

Tony Baldry: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I still believe in democratic principles, so perhaps public pressure and the petitioning of Parliament and the Government will have an impact. Ministers appear to live in a parallel universe, as they do not understand that NHS performance will be ratcheted down, year on year. The £33 million that Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust must find is additional to the £17.3 savings that the primary care trust—effectively, there is a single PCT in Oxfordshire—must find. Services in Oxfordshire are being squeezed in two ways: the acute hospital trust must make cuts, and the commissioning authority cannot provide as much money.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney(Mr. Cameron), my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson), and I have written to the Prime Minister. We sought to summarise our concerns:
	"These cuts are the result of a staggering £33 million debt in the area's NHS. The debt crippling our health services could be wiped out if Oxfordshire's NHS wore funded at the national average. It is not. Instead it is underfunded by twenty per cent. No NHS Trust in Oxfordshire was to be funded at the national average this year. The Government's own figures reveal that Oxfordshire receives the lowest funding per patient in the whole country. The Government's own audit shows that the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust is the most efficient hospital Trust in the whole of England and Wales. These are not our figures, they are not the Trusts; they are the Department of Health's own. This blatant bias is reinforced by the fact that your constituency"—
	our letter was addressed to the Prime Minister—
	"is funded per patient above the national average by almost the same amount Oxfordshire is underfunded. NHS staff should not pay for the Government's unfair funding system and nor should patients. Job losses will set back mental health services including Witney and Banbury, witness the loss of community hospital beds across South Oxfordshire, and leave the John Radcliffe struggling to deliver operations. Oxfordshire now has fewer qualified nurses than we did four years ago."

Michael Wills: I accept that these are difficult issues, and the hon. Gentleman is making the case for his constituency extremely well. However, can he remind the House how much funding his area received in 1997, and how much it receives today?

Michael Wills: I should like to take the opportunity of the debate to consider a much longer-term vision for Swindon, the town that I have the honour of representing. Swindon's existence and prosperity is a tribute to the power of vision. In its first incarnation as a great manufacturing town, it owed everything to the great engineer and entrepreneur, Isambard Kingdom Brunel. When the railways, on which Swindon's prosperity was based, began to decline, the vision and foresight of a post-war Labour town council prompted it to buy a lot of land and to make the town very attractive to businesses. At a time when it was not a fashionable occupation for Labour councils, it wooed businesses to come to Swindon, and that has been the basis of our prosperity for many decades.
	We have been open to the world economy, however, and we now face very particular challenges, from which there is no hiding place. Chinese exports to Europe have increase 100 per cent. in three years, for example, and up to 5 million European and American jobs will be outsourced in the next 15 years. Moreover, many people now realise that we face competition not only from low-wage and low-skill economies. Every year, universities in China and India turn out 4 million graduates.
	Nowhere can escape change. Each of Swindon's major employers has experienced radical restructuring, including W.H. Smith, Asda and Zurich, and Motorola is now consulting on further redundancies. Even the most successful companies in our town are having to face these challenges. Swindon is a prosperous town at the moment, but that prosperity cannot be taken for granted. We must remain attractive to the employers who are going to bring in the high-skill, high-value-added jobs on which our future prosperity depends. That means not only that we need the right skills base but that the town must have an attractive environment.
	The employees on whom those employers will depend are highly mobile, not only within the United Kingdom but throughout Europe and across the globe. Their skills are highly in demand and they can move anywhere, so we have to make the town attractive to them. If we do that, we will have a better chance of attracting the employers on whom the town's prosperity depends. I made this case strongly to the Government a few years ago, and I was able to persuade them to bring in an urban regeneration company, now known as the New Swindon Company. It is regenerating the town centre with that vision very much in mind, and about £1 billion worth of redevelopment will take place in due course. The University of Bath is planning to locate a major campus in Swindon, which will also be crucial to providing the basis for the high skills on which the town's prosperity depends.
	We have to get the vision right, and we have to do so now, while these decisions are being taken. This not a party political issue. I represent the Labour party in North Swindon, but the town council is now Conservative dominated. However, all these decisions will have an impact long after everyone who is now active in local politics has departed the scene. We have to get it right. That is our duty as local politicians. But these crucial decisions are being made, primarily by the town council, without sufficient ambition for the town. We have to compete with other towns not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe and across the world. We have to be more attractive than towns elsewhere, but the town council does not seem able to grasp that vision. I want to explore this point in relation to cultural regeneration and to more general environmental concerns.
	The town council has a vision for the town centre, working with the New Swindon Company, that will undoubtedly result in a significant improvement on what he have now. Any hon. Members familiar with Swindon town centre will know that that would not be hard to achieve. However, when the town council talks about building a desperately needed new library why does it not talk about building one of the best libraries in Britain or Europe? If we consider the example of Tower Hamlets, we can see what an imaginative borough council can do. There is a wonderful new library there called the Idea Store. It is visionary and exciting, bringing in local people in a way that no one would have imagined 10 or 15 years ago. But Swindon does not think in that visionary, imaginative way. Swindon borough council has to learn from elsewhere, and to think about how it can compete with Tower Hamlets and everywhere else in Europe. We are also talking about building a new concert hall in the town, but we are not talking about a concert hall that would be capable of attracting world-class performers. We should be.
	The Swindon local area agreement has just been signed off, and it represents an important step forward for the borough council. It is an improving council with a great deal of support from central Government, and the local area agreement brings together many local agencies in a worthwhile way. I have been urging the borough council for a long time to have a visionary theme to underpin its work, but what did it come up with? It came up with, "Swindon—the UK's best business location". Any town is likely to want to be that, but we must look a little more deeply to avoid a bland and meaningless phrase.
	There is nothing in the local area agreement to suggest why Swindon is going to be the best business location. I very much hope that it will be, but we have to work at that, not just assert it and assume that it will be true. We have to produce the infrastructure and resources that will make it the best business location. The targets in the local area agreement are, of course, good and will improve the position on the ground in a range of different ways, but they are not very ambitious. They are, for the most part, pretty much in line with targets that the Government have set centrally. All that the local area agreement is doing is mimicking those targets. It is good, but not good enough.
	For three or more years, I have been begging the council to develop a green vision for the town and to make it the centrepiece of the local area agreement, but I am afraid that I have been ignored. Everyone accepts that, in climate change, we face one of the greatest problems in the history of our species and that if we do not tackle it now, the consequences for our world will be incalculable. We all have to make a contribution: it is not just a matter for international agreements and national Governments; we have to act personally and in our local areas. We have opportunities to do that and other towns are doing it.
	A Conservative council in Woking is doing fantastically good work in energy conservation. Why cannot the Conservative council in Swindon mimic what a Conservative council in Woking is doing? I am not sure that Swindon council is even aware of it. There is absolutely no evidence that it is on its agenda at all. Reykjavik, to take an example from Europe, is already piloting running its buses on hydrogen. When we are having a major regeneration and re-sculpting of the town centre, why cannot we find something as imaginative and visionary as that in Swindon? When Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the town, he had a wonderful far-reaching vision, which now seems to have been ignored.
	I shall conclude with an example of how difficult it is to persuade Swindon borough council to be more ambitious for the town. Nearly two years ago, I held a meeting in the House of Commons, to which I invited the then leader of Swindon borough council, its officers and various other local dignitaries, as well as a distinguished galaxy of representatives from some of our leading cultural institutions. We had an interesting lunch, in which these distinguished representatives of some of our leading, world-class institutions came up with their ideas about how to transform Swindon with a cultural vision based on lots of exciting and stimulating concepts. No one would expect the town council to take ideas away from the lunch and implement them, but with so much expertise and incalculably valuable advice being freely offered, one would expect it to explore some of those ideas.
	After the meeting, I wrote a note summarising some of the ideas that were proposed and sent it to the borough council. I asked how it would like to proceed and how I could help it, but to this day I have received no reply and, needless to say, none of the ideas has been pursued. A truly ambitious council would have taken those ideas and run with them. All the decisions facing the town now—what to do with the town centre, the new university, the redevelopment of a big site owned by the Science museum in Wroughton in the south of Swindon—desperately require a bold and ambitious vision if the town is to compete successfully with other towns in the UK and across the world.
	Time is running out, as the important decisions are being taken as we speak, and the town stands to benefit from them, but it will not necessarily be good enough. We are not ambitious or competitive enough in Swindon. I am desperately worried that, unless the borough council wakes up now and realises that it is competing throughout the world with similar towns that are ambitious and competitive in their approach to the great challenges of the future, our prosperity may soon become a distant memory.

Lyn Brown: I want to discuss the case of a constituent of mine. Earlier this year,Mr. Singh came to my surgery to discuss his long-running dispute with Thames Water about the installation of a water meter at his property and the subsequent enormous rise in his family's water charges. He told me that Thames Water was not given permission to install the meter, and that it gave him the impression in previous correspondence that a meter would enable him to save money on his water bills. That has not happened. Since the fitting of the water meter,Mr. Singh's water charges have risen excessively: from £159 per annum—the current rateable value for his house—to £469 per annum, which is an increase of almost 300 per cent.
	Mr. Singh's is not a wealthy household in the home counties. There is no huge lawn to water or a swimming pool. His is a small household, consisting of only two adults and one child. The family tell me that they have always been very conservative in their use of water. They have no dishwasher, seldom run their appliances and try to make the most effective use of water by waiting a week before doing their washing. Since installation of the water meter, their usage has had to drop even further as they try to reduce their bills to manageable levels—but to no effect. With mounting bills, they now restrict themselves to the absolute minimum level of water consumption. They are genuinely afraid to turn on their taps and appliances, for fear of a further rise in the water bill. Certainly, since the meter was installed their water bills have trebled, while their already low usage has decreased. Clearly, there is a problem somewhere.
	In response to Mr. Singh's complaints, I wrote to the chief executive of Thames Water to express my and my constituent's concerns about the water supply, and to request Thames Water's assistance in investigating and diagnosing the error that was clearly occurring. I also asked whether it could provide Mr. Singh with the leak detection and repair service that it claims to offer its customers. I know that the House will be surprised and somewhat dismayed to learn that as of this morning, I have received only an acknowledgment of my letter of 17 March. Perhaps it is not just water that is leaking from Thames Water's pipes.
	We need to remember that Thames Water is the only privatised water company in England and Wales that continues to fail to meet its Ofwat targets for acceptable levels of leakages from its pipe system; indeed, it has failed to meet them for the past five years. I acknowledge that Thames Water has inherited some of the worst and oldest water pipes in the country, and that it is not easy to access and fix London's underground pipes, but the Ofwat targets are not excessive. Thames Water's own estimate of water leaked per year has in fact risen: from 688 million litres a day in 2000-01 to 915 million litres a day in 2004-05. That accounted for approximately a quarter of all the water leaked throughout England and Wales.
	Let me be more specific. Each day, 915 million litres of precious water leak of out Thames Water's pipes. That amounts to 10,590 litres of water wasted per second. One third of the total amount piped into the water distribution system is lost.
	I accept that totally eliminating water leakage is not economically practical, but Thames Water is not doing enough. Instead of concentrating its efforts and resources on reducing the waste of an increasingly precious and vital national resource, Thames Water could be accused of concentrating on squeezing further profits out of its customers. Instead of making its supply network as reliable and efficient as is practically possible, it focuses its considerable efforts on persuading householders to accept the installation of water meters, while also raising prices in an effort to reduce demand and ensure that it is able to fund dividend payments to its shareholders. Those dividend payments have been at least £130 million a year for the past six years.
	I fear that Thames Water's actions will have the effect of pricing many people out of the hygienic use and consumption of water. Should that continue, it may result in a public health problem. Let us remember that consumers of water have no realistic option to change their supplier if they are unhappy with the service provided, the cost charged or quality of product. The Government have already recognised fuel poverty as a real issue that affects many low-income households across the UK, and the prospect of compulsory water meters raises the prospect of water poverty.
	Despite the miserable weather that we have had this week, the south-east appears to be entering a period of drought. We are beginning to see hosepipe bans and hearing talk of drought orders being enforced. Water customers are being asked to restrict their usage, while enormous quantities of water are wasted by inefficient infrastructure. Surely something can be done to pressure water companies to increase their renewal and improvement of the pipe network. Let us remember that those companies have a statutory responsibility to supply water to their paying customers. Why should customers accept conservation measures that assist a private profit-making company which seems more interested in returning profits to its investors than in fixing leaks that waste such enormous amounts of clean, precious water?
	The case of Mr. Singh raises concerns about our water companies in general, and Thames Water in particular. It is their responsibility to provide an acceptable level of service to all their customers who, I repeat, have no alternative water supplier. How can Thames Water justify relying on customers to reduce their consumption while allowing a third of the water supply to leak out of its pipes? And how can it be right to promote water metering when it hits the poorest households in this country hardest, and risks pricing low-income households out of the opportunity to use fresh, clean water in 21st century London?
	As water becomes a more scarce resource, it must surely be the right time for further Government measures to improve regulation of the water industry. The water industry must get its own house in order before it can lecture its paying customers on what they should be doing to solve this crisis. The water companies must remember that they are not only there to look after the interests of their shareholders: they must balance that with the interests of the public they are there to serve.

Diana Johnson: I have been interested to hear what all hon. Members have said today. In particular, I was struck by the comments that hon. Members have made about health care in their constituencies. It has been said that Labour Members—or at least Ministers—seem to be living in a parallel universe. My experience of the NHS in my home city of Hull is very positive. Just one example is a recent visit that I paid to the Hull and East Yorkshire eye hospital. A consultant told me that the time between his seeing a person who needs a cataract operation and his operating on them is now nine days. That is in marked contrast to the months and months that people had to wait in the past.
	I am also aware of the local improvement finance trust projects in my constituency—taking place through the NHS and private finance—to build community-based NHS facilities to replace some of the old-fashioned facilities that we had in the past. Hull's NHS services have been chronically underfunded for many years, so I am delighted at the investment that has gone in since 1997 and I can certainly see that coming to fruition. When I talk to my constituents, they cannot speak highly enough of the NHS.
	My theme today is health and, in particular, the wider agenda in relation to public health. I am delighted that we have had many opportunities to talk about public health since I arrived in the House. We took a historic vote on smoking in public places and I was delighted that so many Members backed the ban. I was also delighted that a new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), introduced the Children's Food Bill in the private Members' ballot. I am delighted that several of the Bill's proposals were adopted by the Government, but there is still more to do. Yesterday, I was pleased to see the Third Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill, which contains provisions relating to nutritional standards in all our schools.
	All those measures added together show that the Government are committed to the public health agenda. I want to talk specifically about the public health agenda in my home city of Hull. I am saddened to say that the Liberal Democrats in my home city are taking retrograde steps when it comes to improving the public health of the people of Hull. I will put the matter into context. The National Obesity Forum recently produced some figures showing that more than a quarter of English secondary school children are clinically obese. That is almost double the proportion from a decade ago. The National Obesity Forum says that a "public health time-bomb" is in the making because children who are obese in their early teens are twice as likely to die by the age of 50.
	I am interested in that because Hull has some poor health statistics. We are high up in the cancer league tables. The number of teenage pregnancies has been high. Our educational achievements have not been as good as they should have been. Our housing stock is not as good as it could be. The unemployment situation has not been as good as it could be, although obviously it has got better in recent years. For all those reasons, the council, the NHS in Hull, and the voluntary and community sector are thinking carefully about what they can do collectively to improve the health of young people and children in our primary schools.
	By the time Jamie Oliver took up the issue of healthy school meals, Hull was already ahead of the game. People in Hull had sat down quite a while ago and looked at some proposals in relation to the excellence in cities schemes, education action zones and the children's fund moneys that were available. Breakfast clubs had been set up in schools and fruit had been provided. Things were thus already happening, but Hull was unique because it took the bold step of deciding to introduce healthy free school meals for all children in our primary schools.
	Hull could do that because of the Education Act 2002, which allows local authorities to go to the Department for Education and Skills and ask to change and innovate, if they think that they can make a real difference in their communities. Hull city council approached the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and he agreed that we could innovate. The idea of free healthy school meals for all pupils in our primary schools thus went ahead.
	The scheme has been an enormous success. Children have started to eat much more healthy lunches and they are getting breakfast when they arrive at school first thing in the morning. Fruit and water are also made available during the day, so there is a whole package of measures. The university of Hull is undertaking an ongoing review to examine the effects of healthy eating in our schools. Everyone is agreed that the scheme is an innovative and exciting way of trying to tackle some of the public health problems that can start early in a child's life. If children adopt healthy eating early in life, it is likely that they will maintain it in their teenage years and adulthood.
	The cost of the scheme is about £3.8 million in 2005-06, and Hull city council has been able to bear that cost. The scheme fits in with the Chancellor's view of investing to save because I believe that such investment early in children's lives will mean that the NHS will be saved a huge amount later on because it will not have to deal with the problems of obesity, given that we all know that diabetes and cancer are more prevalent among people with weight problems.
	The scheme in Hull has won the Caroline Walker Trust award for promoting healthy eating to improve public health. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is the Minister responsible for public health, recently visited Hull and discovered at first hand how much children are enjoying the free healthy food when she had a healthy school lunch at the Parks primary school. Hull has made it clear that it is happy and willing to share the good practice that has been developed in the city both nationally and internationally. It recently hosted an international conference to spread such good practice.
	I am bringing the matter to the House's attention because, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrat group on Hull city council has decided that it wishes to return to the policy that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom, whereby children whose parents are on certain benefits become entitled to free school meals. The Conservative leader on the council agrees with the Liberal Democrats about opting out of the innovative and exciting scheme and has said:
	"We have consistently opposed universal free meals because it perpetuates a culture of state reliance".
	That is a great shame because all hon. Members probably accept that the state has a role to support and empower people who often find it difficult to manage on their own. Since we have had free healthy school meals for all children, no one has been seen as any different and all children have enjoyed the food. The take-up rates for the healthy food have increased phenomenally.

Bob Spink: Following last year's report by the Science and Technology Committee on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, a number of issues are still to be resolved. First, when will the Department of Health release its report on the reform of the outdated Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990? When will a joint Committee of both Houses report on the scientific, medical and social changes relating to abortion since 1967? Despite huge advances in the scientific understanding of foetal development and serious abuses of the Abortion Act 1967, there is no mechanism to protect the foetus.
	It is nearly 40 years since the 1967 Act was passed and science has made tremendous advances. Public opinion has changed, partly as a result of huge improvements in the imaging of the unborn child. Parliament is not reluctant to grapple with the issue. A communications research survey showed that nine in 10 MPs want the abortion law to be reviewed continuously in the light of advances in medical science. There is a political will to act—in the last election, all three party leaders called for a review of the timing of abortion—so why has action not been taken? Should we wait cynically for the next election? Are human life and dignity to be held so cheap?
	Thirdly, animal-human hybrids and chimeras are not science fiction. They have crept up on an unsuspecting and unwelcoming public, and have caused worldwide concern. Indeed, the issue was raised in the European Parliament last week. The Donaldson report of 2000 stated that those creations are not covered by the 1990 Act, and rightly recommended prohibition. However, some people at the HFEA and the Department of Health want to legalise them for research purposes. Dark forces are plotting to make animal-human hybrids and chimeras acceptable. In its consultation on the 1990 Act, the Department of Health asked for views on
	"whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal hybrids or chimera embryos for research purposes only".
	The HFEA's clinical and scientific advances group and its ethics and law committee have been asked to provide advice on the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for research. I dispute the right of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to provide advice on animal eggs and non-gamete human cells or to become involved in non-fertility matters. As its name suggests, its remit extends only to human gametes and embryos. It is not empowered to play with such monstrous propositions. It would be dangerous to extend its remit, because it is an undemocratic, unaccountable and self-interested body. It is time that the House brought those three supremely important issues—indeed, they are issues of life itself—under democratic control. I urge the Minister to pass that message on to the Prime Minister and the Department of Health, and to obtain answers on those three points.
	In my constituency, much is happening. A major proposal to import a full 5 per cent. of the national energy requirement would result in ships on the Thames transhipping gas via Canvey island to provide energy for the national grid. My local paper said that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was encouraging
	"planning officers to consider the crucial national benefit of such schemes and to look at Britain's urgent need for gas, as well as local people's concerns."
	He appeared to be putting improper pressure on our local authority, and in some ways trying to bypass the usual planning procedures. That caused great public concern.
	I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a good man, three things. First, we can accept no increase whatever in risk for Canvey people. Secondly, the matter must be brought to a public inquiry at the earliest possible moment—that is, immediately the council rejects it. Finally, we should do and say nothing that might increase the blight of our beautiful island, Canvey island, and of people's homes on that island.
	I turn to the problem of antisocial behaviour. Castle Point has great kids. They are hardworking, they have great integrity, they are honourable, and their parents and our community as a whole can be enormously proud of them. They are our future, but they are spoiled by a few yobs who, fuelled by drink and with growing-up difficulties like we all had, cause mayhem for our community. They are making life for individuals miserable and intolerable.
	Canvey island is plagued by antisocial behaviour and worse, especially in the King George park area. Groups or gangs of 50, sometimes 100 and, in recent weeks, 150 kids have been gathering together, showing off and causing mayhem. Cars have been badly damaged and one, I believe, written off. Fences and walls have been vandalised. There have been serious fights in the street and people have been hurt. Whole neighbourhoods feel under siege, businesses are hit hard and are suffering, the town centre is becoming a no-go area for decent people, and quality of life is being destroyed.
	People feel intimidated, traumatised and afraid. People are standing in their front gardens late on a Friday night to try and ward off these gangs of youths. That is intolerable. It should not be happening. An evil racial element has again—it happened a few years ago—crept in, and must certainly be stopped.
	I have been there personally on four of the past five weekends. I was there last Friday and it was pretty bad. I observed many kids with drink in their hands. I was there on Saturday. It was less bad then—not too bad at all. I patrolled the streets with the police on Saturday night, and I pay tribute to them. They are doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances. If they had better resources, they could do the job better. I pay particular tribute to Kevin Diable-White of Essex police, who is trying to organise the defence of the community and to find long-term solutions to the problem. He is doing a good job.
	The statutory responsibility lies with the council and the police force. Things were very bad on Canvey island 18 months ago and a curfew order was introduced. That quietened things down, the situation improved and the curfew order was lifted. I complained at the time. Since the curfew order has been lifted, things have become much worse very quickly. Now we must get tough in Castle Point.
	We need zero tolerance of yobs. We need to bring back the curfew order and try dispersal orders. The police must attend residents' 999 calls without exception and without excuse. That is not happening at present. The police must use my under-age drinking law more. Sadly, that is the most used law in the country, apart from road traffic regulations. On every occasion that the police use the law to remove drink from under-age children, they should use the whole of the law, which gives them the duty to bring in the parents and involve them. They must let the parents know what the kids are doing, so that the parents can understand and take responsibility and so that, where appropriate, the police can impose parenting contracts.
	The council needs to provide decent facilities for all our kids. That may not stop the bad ones, but it will take the decent ones away from the action. All this must be done in close co-ordination with the community. As a sort of knee-jerk reaction, a teen shelter has been suggested for the King George park. Residents are extremely concerned about that. Any such decision must be made with the community rather than being inopportunely imposed on it in a way that simply exacerbates matters.
	I called for a meeting of the local council, police and residents so that we can again listen carefully to residents. That should be a good start in tackling the problems, but the solutions will take a long time to develop and put in place.
	Nationally, we need a deeper understanding of the cause of, and sustainable solutions for, antisocial behaviour. We cannot dismiss the fact that some kids are simply bad and need tough lessons. Of course, it cannot be denied that the prime responsibility lies with the parents, although it is difficult when there is only one. We all accept that sometimes parents can do their best and still experience problems with their kids. The Government must accept some blame for the increasing problems. Their reluctance to allow proper discipline from the earliest age has not been without consequence.
	The over-focus on children's rights rather than their responsibilities from a young age is an increasing problem. The roll-out of the Government's Sure Start programme, with inadequate evidence of its impact on families, children and developing antisocial behaviour, is a specific example of bad Government policy. Another Government policy of getting mothers back to work and denigrating the role of the housewife may have wide and as yet unrecognised consequences for society. That is all part of the Government's politically correct agenda, and provides a backdrop against which the growth in antisocial behaviour occurs.
	My local council on Canvey island and the mainland has been negligent because it has failed to provide and maintain a decent range of facilities for young and older children. It has removed children's play areas, forcing children, from six to 16, on to the streets and into culs-de-sac to play football and congregate simply because they do not have a park At 4 o'clock, I have a meeting in Central Lobby with the Heritage Lottery Fund about providing two new parks for my area. One would go well in the Woodside area in Benfleet. I hope that I can make some progress on that. I will, of course, stay for the next speech.
	Castle Point is a great community but we are suffering infrastructure breakdown. We experience massive and intolerable congestion on our local roads, overcrowding on our rail line and serious flooding, water, sewage and air quality problems. Residents cannot get their children into their local schools. Some live next door to a school but cannot get their children into it. Two schoolchildren who have lived in my constituency for nine months still go to school in Dagenham. That is ridiculous. What do those responsible do about it? They plan to build 1,000 more houses without any infrastructure. Our green land is under constant threat. We want local councillors to stand up for the residents, not be apologists for the developers or the Deputy Prime Minister.
	We need new access to Canvey island and a new terminus railway station. Let me make a small but indicative local point: we need decent public toilet provision throughout the borough. The public toilets were closed without consultation. The council has changed its policy only after massive pressure from the public and press. It has done a U-turn—perhaps I should say a U-bend. It is beginning to reinstate the decent public toilet provision and disabled access that it took away. That is especially needed by elderly and vulnerable people. Perhaps we think that it is a light matter and we can laugh and joke about it, but it is serious for many people in our communities. I congratulate the  Yellow Advertiser and especially Paul Peterson, who fought for decent toilets. The council should, as a gesture of good will, ask Paul Peterson of the  Yellow Advertiser to open officially the new disabled access toilets that his fight has forced it to provide.
	On a much more serious and fundamental issue, our democracy and election processes are held to be precious, but they have been damaged in Castle Point. It should be for the people, not for a small group with its own secret agenda, to decide who should represent them, and who should make vital decisions on planning, or on the sale—or the suggested giveaway—of major public assets, or on the award of contracts. Such decisions should be taken transparently in the council chamber, not in smoke-filled back rooms by a self-selected group of elected and unelected individuals. This is quite a sinister development. The public know about it, however—hence the extraordinary Castle Point election result last month, in which the Conservatives lost five of the six seats that they fought on Canvey Island. They were all safe Conservative seats in an area in which, in stark contrast, those same local people gave me the second biggest swing achieved by any Tory against Labour at the general election last year. If that swing had been replicated across the country, we would be sitting on the other side of the House today.
	There is a clear message here. The people understand what is going on and they demand action from the authorities who are in control, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, whom I mentioned in the House earlier. I was emphatically elected by the people of Castle Point to deal openly and properly with these difficult matters on their behalf, and to stand above party political interests in defending our democracy and fighting for what is right. I can readily accept councillors criticising me for speaking out, but I will not stand by and do nothing. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
	In Castle Point, our democracy has been abused. Our council and great political structures have been brought into public disrepute, and we must take action to regain public respect and trust. Writing in the  Evening Echo newspaper this week, Tony Burnell sagely said:
	"I have long advocated that politics should be taken from local government."
	I have long agreed with that.

Charles Walker: Once again, I wish to raise the issue of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust, which provides mental health services. It is an important trust, which serves Hertfordshire and my constituency, and faces significant cuts this year and perhaps in coming years.
	In case I sound churlish, let me say that the Government's record in mental health is moving in the right direction. Everyone, across the political spectrum, wants the best service delivered to some of society's most vulnerable people. Let me add the caveat, however, that the Government have probably slightly lost their way recently, especially in Hertfordshire.
	As Members of the House and the wider public know, mental health problems come with a huge amount of stigma attached. One need only think of the headlines in  The Sun when Frank Bruno underwent mental health problems—the headline "Frank Loono" was considered—and when Adam Ant had his problems. The behaviour of the media was disgraceful.
	For that reason, I am glad that the Government are spending money on a campaign to raise awareness of mental health problems and to try to reduce the stigma—Shift. Unfortunately, that campaign receives funding of only £1 million across England, which is 2p per head. That pales into insignificance when compared with the 15p per head spent in Scotland, although that is not a huge sum of money either. I am afraid that those figures are not in the same ballpark as the money spent on smoking cessation programmes, important though those are.
	The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust was founded in 2001 and has operated since without going into deficit; it has balanced its books. This year, however, despite its good financial record, it was asked to make savings of £5.6 million—more than a 5 per cent. cut in its annual budget. I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate on 19 April, when I mentioned several of the services to be closed. I will not rehash those points today; the House is aware of them and they are recorded in  Hansard. However, those closures are against the proposals in the Government's White Paper "Investing in Your Mental Health", which most Members of the House welcomed.
	When I first raised the issue in that Adjournment debate, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) said:
	"The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust's total increased investment in its mental health services is £4.2 million over and above inflation for the three-year period from 2003 to 2006."—[ Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 204.]
	That sounds good, until we remember that although the trust had an additional £4.2 million, the Government are now asking for £5.6 million back. What they gave with one hand they seem to be taking back with two.
	When I raised that with the Minister, she said
	"I will come to some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised."—[ Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 204.]
	Unfortunately, she forgot to do so. Undeterred, I raised the same issue with the Secretary of State for Health—who, I may say, knows me by name, which is probably more than some of my own Front Benchers do, so I have a great deal of time for her. When I asked my question, she looked me straight in the eye and said
	"I shall come to that point in a little more detail in a moment."—[ Official Report, 9 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 193.]
	I had absolutely no reason to disbelieve the Secretary of State. After all, she calls me Charles in the Division Lobbies and always makes time for me. Unfortunately, she too forgot to return to the point.

Charles Walker: Only yesterday evening I bumped into the Secretary of State during the vote on the Education and Inspections Bill as we supported the Government against their own Back Benchers. When I suggested to her that she might want to answer the question about what was happening to the money in a little more detail at a future date, she smiled very sweetly and moved on quickly.
	I am extremely disappointed that my local mental health trust faces such huge cuts over the coming year. If we are to believe Government figures given during a debate on 7 February, they account for a third of all the money being clawed back from mental health trusts in the United Kingdom. In response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Minister of State, Department of Health said
	"11 of 84 trusts are making expenditure reductions that amount to £16.5 million out of a total expenditure on mental health of more than £6 billion".—[ Official Report, 7 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 755.]
	Well, £16.5 million across 11 trusts does not sound a lot of money—in fact, I am sure that it is a little more than that—but my trust accounts for a third of that amount, £5.6 million, with the other 10 trusts have to make cuts of £1.1 million each. I cannot believe that that is just or fair, particularly given that the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust has never been in deficit in the five years for which it has been in operation. It has always balanced its books. What message do those cuts send to other trusts throughout the country that are struggling to balance their books? Not a very positive one.
	Perhaps the Hertfordshire trust has been a little naïve. Why did it even bother to balance its books over the past five years? Perhaps it should have just gone into deficit, like so many other trusts. I am concerned about the fact that the trust is being asked to bail out other parts of the health service. That seems to contradict what the Secretary of State for Health believes. When I asked her about this—no, I did not ask her, actually; she just said it—she announced:
	"we are reforming the way in which the NHS is run so that every hospital"
	—I assume that she meant "trust"—
	"takes responsibility for organising the best care within its budget. We will not expect others to bail them out."—[ Official Report, 9 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 196.]
	That is simply not the case. As I have explained, my local mental health trust is being asked to bail out hospitals and trusts that are in deficit to the tune of £5.6 million. It is being penalised, and there seems to be no justice in the way in which it is being treated.
	Of course, the Government will say that they have put local decision making in the hands of local health communities. That does not apply in this case. After all, it is the Government who fund the NHS, via the taxpayer. It is the Government who expect trusts to achieve financial balance, and demand that they do so. And it is the Government who, in this instance, are in essence asking for their money back.
	I have raised my concerns with a number of charities, including Rethink, which as most Members know is a leading mental health charity. In its briefing, which was sent to Members of Parliament only a couple of weeks ago, it states:
	"We believe that this is a national pattern in which wider health deficits are being addressed by shifting resources out of mental health."
	That is a fairly damning and worrying statement that should concern everyone in this Chamber and at the Department of Health, and all those outside this Chamber who would doubtless like to be here now. Mental health cuts are the deepest cuts. Mental health has traditionally been underfunded, so every pound taken from it can almost be multiplied by two or three when one contrasts that service with the better-funded areas of health care, such as cancer and heart disease.
	I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central to ask her whether she was aware of the scale of the cuts and of the damage that they would do to local mental health services in Hertfordshire. She kindly responded on 5 May, saying:
	"In deciding what proposals should be considered, the PCTs took account of...efficiency savings that could be made and that would avoid an adverse impact on front-line services".
	Well, the cuts in Hertfordshire will have an impact on front-line services—a very severe one. The hon. Lady also said that PCTs took account of
	"proposals that were in accord with the principles and priorities set out in the recent consultation on mental health services".
	I assume that she was referring to "Investing In Your Mental Health".
	I have spoken to national charities and charities in the local health community, and they are absolutely convinced that the cuts will impact on people's health and increase the risk of suicide, and might lead to additional suicides. The hon. Lady went on to say that proposals were considered
	"that did not worsen any inequality in the delivery of services across Hertfordshire."
	I am afraid to say that those proposals will lead to huge inequality in the delivery of services and have an enormous impact on many people's lives.
	I ask the Secretary of State to intervene in this matter. She is a decent woman, and if she took the time to look at what is going on and to consider the fact that a trust that has never been in deficit in five years is being penalised for the deficits of others, she might change her mind. As Rethink said, the Department of Health is complacent about these cuts and the impact that they will have on some of the sickest people in society—people who are ignored by, and who feel marginalised by, society. These are vital, critical services for local people, and central to their well-being.

Norman Lamb: I was pleased that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) focused on mental health, which has always been the Cinderella service. It self-evidently deals with some of the most vulnerable people, and many of us are extremely concerned about cuts to the service.
	I want to take this opportunity to raise a number of issues that are of concern to Norfolk in particular, but all of which have some wider significance. First, I want to discuss the very sad closure of RAF Coltishall in my North Norfolk constituency and the question of age discrimination. A constituent of mine, Mr. Tony Thorpe, is a civilian employed by the RAF at Coltishall and has worked there for nearly 11 years. He is 60 and was amazed to discover that the cut-off point for entitlement to redundancy payment is 57. Such employees are exempt from the normal right to statutory redundancy payments, and he was initially told that he would get no redundancy payment at 60. We should bear it in mind that, at that age, it is particularly difficult to get other work. He was subsequently told, however, that he would receive a discretionary payment of £1,500—a figure based on allowing £150 a year for each of his 10 complete years of service. That is massively less than someone who had served the same number of years but was aged 40—an age at which it is much easier to get other work. That is not an appropriate way to treat someone who has worked loyally for the RAF for more than a decade.
	The law will change on 1 October, when the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 come into force under the European employment directive. The explanatory notes state that, among other measures, they will remove the upper age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights, giving older workers the same rights to claim unfair dismissal or to receive a redundancy payment as younger workers. The Government will introduce those rights in October, but they are denying the same rights to someone who is being made redundant before then.
	In 1999, the Government introduced a voluntary code of practice on age diversity in employment that was supposed to set out best practice principles. The Government have failed to follow their own code and are discriminating against loyal staff only months before they legislate to outlaw that unacceptable discrimination. Today, the Government accepted the argument that we will all have to work longer, so why should they discriminate against someone aged 60? I urge the Minister to pass on my concerns to his colleagues in the Department for Trade and Industry, because that injustice needs to be addressed immediately.
	The next issue is a case study of what has been dubbed the "Tescoisation" of Britain. In Norfolk, Tesco already has 44 stores, but in a long-running saga it has attempted to secure a supermarket site in Sheringham, a thriving coastal town with an impressive town centre and shopping area. Last September, in the latest stage of the saga, the local authority planning committee emphatically rejected Tesco's latest proposal, voting 20 to nil against it. However, in April, councillors were forced into an extraordinary volte face. They decided no longer to resist Tesco's appeal against an earlier refusal after receiving legal advice on an agreement that had come to light on the sale of land by the council to Tesco. It had been signed by officers immediately after the 2003 district elections, when a new council had been elected but before members took their seats. The new councillors were not informed and a confidentiality clause was included that appears to have prevented them from explaining to an amazed public why they had changed their minds so completely compared with just a few months earlier. It appears that that legal agreement effectively prevented the council from pursuing any alternative proposal on council-owned land. Tesco managed to secure an exclusive right, without the public knowing, to pursue a supermarket application.
	The public were amazed by the apparently inexplicable change of approach and it is untenable for local people to be left in the dark about a process that has been characterised by secrecy. I pay tribute to the council for being determined to get the full facts into the public domain, but I am concerned that years of secret negotiations between council officers and a major supermarket chain appear to have resulted in a legal agreement with a secrecy clause, leading to a volte face by the council without the public having any idea why that has happened. That is not an example of open and transparent decision-making. The whole planning process needs to be looked at to ensure that the public can have confidence in it.
	Norfolk and Norwich university hospital is one of the Government's flagship private finance initiative projects. It was built immediately after the 1997 general election, and it pioneered, on behalf of the whole NHS, the new form of financing that the Government said was the way forward. The hospital now faces a financial black hole of about £15 million.
	We have heard already in this debate about health service redundancies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) told the House that his local hospital is to lose a number of nursing sisters. The flagship Norfolk and Norwich hospital faces the prospect of up to 450 redundancies—nearly 10 per cent. of its work force. That is obviously a massive concern to the people involved, but we must also be worried about the impact on patient care.
	The trust has said:
	"We do not believe that we can achieve the required level of cost savings to break even in 06-07 without the risk of severely compromising the ability of the hospital to deliver safe, high-quality patient care."
	That is an extremely serious matter, so what caused the financial crisis? Was it chaotic management? Clearly not: we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Broxbourne that his hospital trust had met its financial targets every year, and the same is true of the Norfolk and Norwich. It has broken even every year, at the same time as implementing the sort of major change that the Government have encouraged. It is well run, but it was told about its budget settlement only two weeks before the start of the new financial year. That is a ridiculous way to plan the finances of a major hospital.
	I want to highlight two issues, the first of which is the PFI contract. I referred the contract to the National Audit Office a couple of years ago, as it seemed to be very expensive and a poor deal for the NHS. Ultimately, the NAO agreed, finding that the Norfolk and Norwich hospital trust was paying an additional sum, or premium, for being one of the first PFI hospitals. When it was built, it was very difficult to secure private sector engagement, and the hospital had to pay extra.
	The private partner in the project was the Octagon consortium. Two years after the hospital opened, Octagon refinanced and secured a windfall gain of £116 million, £82 million of which it retained. In its recent report on what is an extraordinary scandal, the Public Accounts Committee said that
	"the benefits to Octagon's investors have soared on refinancing to levels which are unacceptable even for an early PFI deal".
	The report went further, adding:
	"We do not expect to see another Accounting Officer appearing before this Committee defending what we believe to be the unacceptable face of capitalism...in the consortium's dealings with the public sector."
	Those are the words of the PAC's Conservative Chairman, and they are a pretty strong condemnation of what happened.
	Octagon's chairman is the well respected Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk, Richard Jewson. He and his colleagues should reflect on the PAC's findings very carefully. It is a major Committee of this House, and its findings must be taken very seriously by the Government and their private-sector partners. Both the Government and Octagon should reflect on the findings, and consider whether it is in their long-term interests to assist the Norfolk and Norwich hospital trust further in dealing with its severe financial difficulties. The public of Norfolk will expect nothing less than a further contribution from Octagon.
	I call on the Secretary of State to intervene. Norfolk's patients should not pay the price of pioneering a new form of financing on behalf of the Government and the health service. The premiumfor this expensive PFI contract amounts to about£6.8 million a year—a significant amount.
	Many hon. Members might be aware that the market forces factor is the device by which the economics of operating in different geographical areas are taken into account and, theoretically, equalised to ensure fairness around the country. The formula is a fiction. I understand that departmental officials have serious doubts about whether it is fit for purpose. It discriminates against Norfolk and Norwich hospital and results in an income reduction for it of some£5.2 million in this financial year. Addenbrooke's enjoys a 13 per cent. advantage under the formula over the Norfolk and Norwich, yet the cost of employing staff in Cambridge and Norwich is precisely the same. All areas have to pay the same, other than London, which pays London weighting. The Secretary of State has undertaken to look at the formula. I know that it affects other parts of the country adversely as well. I hope that she will report back speedily to prevent the worst impact of the cuts to which I have referred. There needs to be a fair formula.
	Finally, most hon. Members will not be familiar with the construction of the BBL pipeline—a gas pipeline to Backton in my constituency. The site takes in about a third of the country's gas supplies, so is of fundamental, strategic importance. The pipeline is of enormous significance and the Government are desperate to get it built before next winter because they do not want a repeat of the gas shortages that we experienced last winter. Clearly, it is an urgent priority.
	When such projects are undertaken local inshore fishermen receive disruption payments. The construction of the pipeline might have a serious impact on their work and livelihoods. According to the DTI, there is no legislation or set procedures to be followed regarding compensation payments. Apparently, it is a matter of good will. That causes me and many others serious concern. It is extremely important that the fishermen's interests are protected. If something of national, strategic importance is being undertaken, those affected by it should not be forgotten.
	I have particular concerns about the process that was followed. In negotiations with the company, two people represented the fishermen, Andy Roper and David Shillings. While acting for the fishermen, Mr. Shillings was offered a payment by the company. I raised these concerns with the company, but was told that I had got it all wrong, that Mr. Shillings was a representative of the company, not the fishermen, and that he would receive a payment of £50,000. I was told that this was all set out in a legal agreement and was above board. One week later I received an e-mail from the company, apologising that it had got it all wrong and that Mr. Shillings was not a representative of the company, but was a representative of the fishermen. The company apologised for the confusion. Its explanation was literally incredible.
	One person cannot represent both sides in negotiations. A representative protecting the interests of the fishermen self-evidently cannot be offered £50,000 by the company with which he is negotiating. That raises a central concern: did the fishermen who depend on the North sea for the livelihoods receive a fair deal? I have raised the matter with the Government, who simply say that it is nothing to do with them and that it is for the company to negotiate with the fishermen. However, I should like the DTI to look into the issue. If such essential projects have an impact on other people, such as fishermen, their interests and their livelihoods should be taken into account. There should be a statutory right to disruption payments and a legal framework to protect their interests.
	I have raised four issues of major concern to Norfolk, but they all have wider implications. I hope that the Minister will refer all of them to relevant colleagues.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the chance to contribute briefly to the debate.
	My constituency is the eighth richest in the country; anecdotally, I am told that we have more PhDs per square foot than any other constituency. However, representing an affluent constituency brings its own problems, which I want to highlight. It is important that the Government understand that one of the most economically dynamic areas of the country needs their assistance as much as deprived areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke eloquently about the crisis facing Oxfordshire's health services. Today, members of staff at the John Radcliffe hospital have been told the number of redundancies and job cuts that will be made. I do not propose to repeat the points that my hon. Friend made about our health service; I shall focus on some infrastructure issues that cause great concern in my constituency.
	The main trunk road running through the constituency is the A34. Two weeks ago, tragically, a young man was killed crossing the road. The ensuing chaos was extraordinary to behold; it was like a scene from a disaster movie. Traffic was backed up for miles and people travelling between Wantage and Didcot took four or five hours to travel just six miles.
	The A34 dual carriageway is the only road linking some parts of my constituency and some of its economic areas. There are no plans to upgrade the road for the foreseeable future, certainly not for the next10 years, yet it is of major importance, taking freight from Southampton to the midlands while serving as a local road for local businesses that have a national and international imprint.
	I urge the Minister to impress on his colleagues the need for the Government to take a proper, strategic look at infrastructure in my constituency. Not only does it contain some the country's most successful businesses, it serves the south-east. We take most of London's waste for landfill and Didcot power station provides power for at least a third of the homes in the south-east. We are also due to get the Oxfordshire reservoir, of which Members who take an interest in our current water shortage will be fully aware. The reservoir site is just south of Abingdon and it will be huge—four miles wide—and will provide water for London and Swindon. The scheme has been on the cards since 1990, but there is tremendous uncertainty about the plans. It will be a national decision, taken by the Government, but it will have a huge impact on my local community. There has been no discussion and the Government have given no indication of the impact of the construction of the scheme. There has been no discussion about the additional benefits that could come to my constituency, in terms of upgrading the local infrastructure, if the reservoir were to be built.
	The other great problem that I face—many of my colleagues who represent south-east constituencies also face it—is the number of new houses being built. In Didcot, the main town in my constituency, we are getting 3,000 additional homes and we are due to get a further 5,000 if the South East England regional assembly has its way. Just north of Wantage, in Grove, which is already the largest village in Europe, another 2,500 homes have just been approved, doubling the size of the village. With up to 12,000 or 13,000 additional homes in that small part of the country coming on line in the next 10 or 20 years, it will be vital to deal with the infrastructure, and particularly the A34.
	Finally, the reason why the issue is so important in terms of the Government's national interest is that, thankfully for the people living in my constituency, an enormous amount of scientific investment is being made. The Diamond Synchrotron is due to come on line in the next year, representing a financial investment by the Government of some £500 million. That will ensure that Harwell/Chilton remains at the forefront of scientific innovation not just in our country, but in the world. Up the road, nuclear fusion research is taking place at Culham. With the opening of the ITER site in the next few years in the south of France, that work will continue to have enormous importance.
	All that scientific investment means that we have a huge number of spin-off scientific companies such as Oxford Instruments and companies based at Milton park, which are really driving the British economy. However, when I visit those local businesses, they come back to me again and again with one point: the gradual breaking down of the local infrastructure. The road network is of poor quality and, recently, the Government, through First Great Western, were planning to cut train services between London and Didcot. We are still fighting that battle and we are gradually saving those train services. I hope that we will have saved them by the time that the revised timetable comes out in the autumn.
	Essentially, my contribution to the debate is to ask the Government to sit at the table with my local politicians and local businesses to create some kind of strategic plan for my part of the world. We look after London's waste; we power the south-east; in the next decade, we are probably going to provide most of the water for London; and we have thriving, dynamic businesses. However, we receive almost no Government investment or strategic help whatsoever.

Theresa May: Of course, the Government came into office with the mantra, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." What we have is lots of legislation on crime, but nothing on the causes of crime.
	The picture that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington drew was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) in an effective contribution that painted a vivid picture of the problems in his area and the lack of activity by the previous Labour council. I congratulate the Conservative group on Bexley council on its excellent results in the local elections on 4 May.
	Antisocial behaviour was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). Sadly, the problems identified by my hon. Friends are experienced elsewhere. Last Saturday afternoon, I spoke to residents in South road and High Town road in Maidenhead about the problems they experience from gangs congregating near Grenfell park and from people walking past their houses after they have left bars. They are often young people who have been binge drinking, a problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford drew attention.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned police community support officers. I agree that we need more police on the streets but, failing that, we need more PCSOs. A recent petition that I and others ran in Woodley in my constituency got more than 600 signatures in favour of a PCSO there. It is only a pity that the Liberal Democrat-controlled Woodley town council has been reluctant to find the £15,000 necessary to part-fund a PCSO out of the £1 million it takes each year from local residents.
	My hon. Friend rightly said that those problems are quality of life issues and that we must have zero tolerance of crime and antisocial behaviour. It is only by not accepting that sort of behaviour and by insisting that something is done about it that we can hope to overcome the problem. If we shrug our shoulders and pass on, saying, "Well, it's only antisocial behaviour," the problems are exacerbated.
	Local policing will not be helped by the Government's moves to create large regional forces. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield said, those moves are often rejected by local forces. The Government's consultation on that has been shown to be a complete sham by the number of police forces that do not want to be merged and yet those mergers are going ahead.
	On a different subject, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke about water supply, in particular leakages, but also the impact of increased costs on many people. There is no doubt that rises in the costs of utilities, together with rises in council tax, have hit many people hard, especially those who are on fixed incomes. She also referred to the water shortage in the south-east. Obviously, repairing those leaks would have a significant impact on that, but I suspect that she and those of us who spend part of our time in London should say a word of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who told us that his constituency is going to have a reservoir, which will help to solve London's water problems.
	On the subject of water shortages, last night, I visited the 2nd Cox Green girl guides in my constituency. I answered questions about my experience as a Member of Parliament, and I encouraged the girls to think about politics as a career. I was asked a range of questions, but as we sat with the rain beating against the window, one girl could not help but ask why there was a hosepipe ban.
	I suspect that water shortages are less of a problem in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). He raised a number of issues that affect his constituents, most of them arising from the geographical position of his constituency. It is right to remind the Government of the problems experienced by rural areas, where the considerable distances that people have to travel make it more difficult for them to access services. They must pay high petrol prices, but the Government's attempts to drive people on to public transport simply do not work in such areas because, as he pointed out, public transport is not available. As a result, people in rural areas end up paying more.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Royal Mail and the removal of the post office card account. He and other hon. Members will know that in recent months that has been raised time and time again in business questions, but the Government continue to duck the issue. May I remind the Deputy Leader of the House that the chief executive of the Post Office has said that the removal of the post office card account would result in the Post Office operating 10,000 fewer branches? The Government, however, have refused to address the future of the Post Office. They cannot continue to set their face against the issue. They must address it, as the removal of the card account will have a significant impact on the future of Post Office branches.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) gave us an entertaining picture of the political scene in Hull, with particular reference to school meals. May I suggest that before she worries about cross-party consensus she should try to achieve consensus in her own party? She obviously feels strongly about healthy eating, which she regards as the answer to childhood obesity. I believe that there are two sides to the problem: it is not just about what children eat but about how much exercise they take. Sadly, under the Government, there has been a drop in physical activity in many schools. For many years, children have become increasingly sedentary, whether they are watching television, surfing the net or playing computer games, so we must ensure that they take more physical exercise and run around. In business questions, I said that the cramming of houses into smaller spaces reduced the size of gardens, so children did not have much space to run around and enjoy physical activity. I am sorry that that met with laughter from Government Members, as the policy of cramming too many small houses on to a site reduces gardens and open space, which will have an impact in future.
	Reduced access to public parks will have a similar impact. No recess Adjournment debate would be complete without a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, who said that public parks in his constituency were important, as they gave youngsters space to run around. Other members of the population could walk and sit in them, and their enjoyment would improve their quality of life. He raised, too, matters of conscience on which he has strong views, particularly abortion and the use of human embryos. However, he raised one issue that was new to me—the creation of animal-human hybrids—and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House listened carefully to the points that he made.
	In yesterday's debate on the Education and Inspections Bill, we raised special needs education, particularly special schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) pointed out. He referred to the problems experienced by many parents of children with special needs when trying to access the right provision for their children. The process means that parents often have to spend a long time fighting for such provision for their children. For some, that ends up in tribunals, and often in paying for support at the tribunal. I shared my hon. Friend's concern about the case that he raised in relation to the daughter of his constituent, Mrs. Chambers. The fact that information can be kept from parents should be a concern for us all in the House.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of bullying, which is a problem for far too many children. Like him, I do not believe we do enough to prevent and stop bullying. Sadly, whereas good practice in schools can improve the situation, bad practice can at best achieve nothing and at worst can make matters worse. We must do more to identify good practice with regard to bullying and to spread that good practice.
	My hon. Friend also spoke about basic literacy in our schools. It is a serious matter, not just because of the impact that illiteracy has on children's lives as they go through school and the fact that it holds them back in further learning, but because of the problems that it causes when they reach adulthood in getting a job and in basic living—understanding Government forms or reading instructions on convenience food or medicine bottles—let alone how it affects their overall quality of life. My hon. Friend is right: we in the House should be more angry about the matter than we are, and I commend him for highlighting it.
	Quality of life was also a theme in the contribution of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke about a number of constituency cases, notably that of his constituent Tony Thorpe, who was not eligible for redundancy payments following the closure of RAF Coltishall. The hon. Gentleman ably set out his constituent's case and the apparent unfairness of the current regulations. He also spoke about the treatment of North sea fishermen in the context of the work on the BBL pipeline. I trust that the Deputy Leader of the House listened to those specific points.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned a Tesco store in Sheringham. I remember Sheringham from my childhood. I remember playing crazy golf on the beach at Sheringham with much joy and delight, at least to me, if not to those watching and playing with me. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the Tesco store raised important points about the planning system, particularly about negotiations between the council and Tesco.
	I cannot comment on the individual case because I do not know enough about the details, but there is an issue with regard to the planning system because it depends on public confidence. All those involved in the planning process have a duty to behave in a way that ensures public confidence in the system. It is an issue that I often raise with reference to the enforcement of planning conditions. If developers believe that they can get away with breaching or ignoring planning conditions, the whole system is brought into disrepute.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who squeezed his way into the debate at the end, spoke about a variety of issues. I have mentioned the transport issue. For areas of economic vitality, infrastructure is crucial. The Thames Valley Economic Partnership has pointed out that because the Thames valley is economically vibrant and doing well, transport infrastructure is not put into it. Of course, the opposite is true. If transport infrastructure is not put in, the economic vibrancy will start to fail.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Diamond synchrotron and other incredibly impressive scientific work being done in his constituency. Last week at the TVEP dinner, I had the benefit of listening to somebody from the Rutherford Appleton laboratory in his constituency, who waxed lyrical for some time about space exploration and the impressive scientific work being done there. He also told us one important fact: in 2029 an asteroid will come very close to earth. The good news is that in 2029 it only comes close to earth. The bad news is that in 2036 it may very well hit the earth. Like everybody at the dinner, those in the Chamber are probably making a mental calculation of where they will be in 2036 and whether that matters to them. I leave them to do that.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the NHS. It has been raised consistently in business questions since I became shadow Leader of the House in December. The hon. Member for Chesterfield was the first to mention it in this afternoon's debate when he spoke about job losses at his local hospital, which is not a failing but a three-star hospital that has consistently delivered Government policy. Both the current and the previous Leader of the House have constantly criticised me in business questions for referring to job cuts in the NHS. I reiterate that they should get out and find what is happening in the NHS.
	As several hon. Members said, real job cuts are taking place. There are 43 fewer ward sisters in the Chesterfield royal infirmary, 600 jobs are going in the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust and 450 jobs will be lost in the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust. Cuts are also happening in mental health trusts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) outlined when he mentioned the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust. Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust has to save £10 million. It hopes to do that without cuts in services, but how can it without affecting services?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to his somewhat cosy relationship with the Secretary of State for Health, which he appears to have developed on several occasions in the Division Lobby. He gave the impression that he had spent rather a lot of time with her there. Although I appreciate that we have joined the Government in the Lobby on a small number of occasions recently, my hon. Friend has either been spending more time there than with us—I doubt that—or he is a fast worker. However, job cuts in the health service are a serious matter. They will affect patient care, not only the lives of those whose jobs are taken away.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield specifically mentioned financial planning and what happens when the Government pull the rug away from under one's feet half way through the system. In the Thames valley area, the rules changed six months into the financial year and it was therefore little wonder that the trusts found themselves in financial difficulties. Yet the Government keep saying that mismanagement in the trusts leads to the deficits. That is often not the case, and the Government's actions cause the problems.

Theresa May: Yes, I do. It is also remarkable that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, which is the most efficient trust, has to make 600 job cuts as a result of the requirement to cut the amount of money that it is spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke movingly about the impact of that decision, which is being made today, on not only those who lose their jobs but Horton general hospital in his constituency and services for his constituents generally.
	The Government keep responding, as the hon. Member for North Swindon did today, by saying that more money is being spent on the NHS today than in the past, so everything must be all right. We all know that more money is being spent on the NHS today than in the past. Taxpayers know that but they want to know how the Secretary of State for Health can say that it has been the best year ever for the NHS when staff are losing their jobs, community hospitals are threatened with closure and units such as the maternity unit at Wycombe hospital have been closed. That means that people have to travel further for services and their choice is being taken away from them. People have a simple question. They know that they have been paying more towards the health service but what has happened to the money? The answer is that too much has been spent on the target culture and administrative changes.
	I have been a Member of Parliament for nine years and, in that time, the structure of primary care in my constituency has been changed four times. Those changes not only disrupt services but take up money that is doing nothing to improve patient care. The Government need to open their eyes to what is happening out there in the national health service. People know that the money that the Government are spending is not going on the improvements that they were promised, and from which they believed they would benefit. This Government are out of touch and in paralysis.

Nigel Griffiths: I looked at the same geographical area and the information covered by it. The figures will have been added up from the hospitals in operation then and divided between PCTs. That is a fair question, if I might say.
	On hospital closures, I know from the major hospitals in my constituency, including the sick children's hospital, which I visited last Saturday, that the relentless pressure on technology, as well as the need for multi-million pound suites of technological equipment and for large teams of specialists, are driving the health service towards not just a more expensive delivery of service, but centralisation, because the critical mass can be achieved only by harmonising.
	I recognise that that causes problems and it gives me no pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Banbury, who is genuinely representing constituents' concerns, that his constituents may have to travel for an hour to a local hospital. That has been accepted over time in rural areas, and it is a pity if people see it as a diminution of the modern health service. I am not convinced, however, that such technological development, with highly skilled surgeons, nursing teams, anaesthetists and so on, does not tend to dictate that fewer highly expensive facilities are provided that do more and more effectively. I hope that he can have that dialogue with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health. It is, however, a genuinely vexing issue.
	The hon. Member also mentioned one or two other issues, and I shall not make the political points thatI might have done— [Interruption.] Can I get away with saying that, in relation to cardiology services,2.5 million patients are now receiving specialist drug treatments compared with 300,000 in 1997? I do not know how much of that is related to extra funding, how much is related to technology and so on. Without making a political point, I am glad, as he will be glad, that 2.5 million people are receiving that treatment. Of course, since 1997, heart disease is down by 38 per cent.

Mark Harper: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; we would welcome his joining us in our meeting with the Secretary of State. That interesting information perhaps highlights the concerns that constituents have when they see that the various areas within a strategic health authority are not being treated fairly and equally, which is all that they are asking for.
	The White Paper on community hospitals makes it clear that community hospitals that are under threat of closure should not be lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures. Both the Dilke and Lydney community hospitals in my constituency are threatened with closure for exactly that reason, and I want to know what the Government intend to do about that contradiction.
	I raised that issue with the Prime Minister yesterday, and instead of answering my question he changed the subject. I hope that the Minister will do better. The Prime Minister is quick to claim credit for any good news in the NHS, as he attempted to do in his response to me yesterday, but if he is personally responsible for all that goes well, it follows that he must take responsibility for what goes badly. If he is responsible for new hospitals opening, he is also responsible when community hospitals are closed.
	It is not only hospitals that we must be concerned about, but the services available in the community. I received an e-mail yesterday from a GP in my constituency, who pointed out that there is a complete embargo by the PCT on replacing staff who leave and on employing new staff. In the West Gloucestershire PCT, which covers my constituency, six health visitor posts and two community nursing posts are being held unfilled. That does not fill us with confidence that services that are being cut in hospitals will be replaced by services in the community.
	The Minister will know that I continue to raise, through parliamentary questions, the issue of the policy of the Department of Health on deficits in the NHS. The cuts proposed in Gloucestershire have been prompted by deficits, but there is a contradiction at the heart of Government policy, and I hope that the Minister can clear it up. The January 2006 operating framework for 2006-07 said:
	"All NHS organisations should plan to recover deficits for previous years and balance their books for 2006-07."
	However, the Secretary of State wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire(Mr. Lansley) on 12 April, stating that the Department expected
	"all organisations that are overspending to show improvements during 2006-07, and by the end of the year everyone should have monthly income covering monthly expenditure."
	Those two statements outline different policies and both cannot be true. My hon. Friend tried to get an answer to that conundrum at Health questions on 16 May. The Secretary of State was absent, for a good reason, and the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) skirted around the issue and did not answer the question.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), in winding up for the Opposition in the debate on community hospitals in Westminster Hall yesterday, pressed the matter again. The Minister of State intended, I am sure, to answer the question yesterday, but unfortunately ran out of time. I plan to give the Minister adequate time to deal with the question in this debate, and it is critical to my constituents and others in Gloucestershire that she does.
	The strategic health authority for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire is operating under the impression that financial balance must be achieved across the year and all historic deficits must be cleared. That message is being driven down to the primary care trusts. Moreover, Gloucestershire—to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud—is losing £6 million this year, which is being taken away to bail out other areas, and we are expected to cut services to fund that. If the Minister does not confirm the position set out by the Secretary of State in her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, the cuts bandwagon will continue rolling and will pick up speed.
	I now come to consultation. The health White Paper also says:
	"PCTs taking current decisions about the future of community hospitals will be required to demonstrate to their SHA that they have consulted locally and have considered options such as developing new pathways, new partnerships and new ownership possibilities. SHAs will then test PCT community hospital proposals against the principles of this White Paper."
	I have to say that many people in my constituency have a very cynical view of consultations. They believe, with some justice, that decisions are already taken, that lip service will be paid to their views and then the PCTs will plough on regardless. Just yesterday, I heard that an official from the PCT turned up at the Dilke hospital, and when asked what he was doing, said that he was there to oversee the closure. That is before the consultation process has even started.
	The Department's own guidance says that
	"there is a statutory duty for NHS bodies to consult the local overview and scrutiny committee on a substantial change...committees should also note the duty to 'consult and involve' patients and the public conferred on NHS organisations".
	The NHS has also issued guidance on service changes. It says that proposals for reconfiguration of services should involve the development of options with people, rather than for them. They should also focus on the redesign of services, and not their relocation, and take a whole-systems view that explores the contribution of all health and social care providers, working together to build sustainable solutions for the whole community. None of that has happened. The proposals for cuts came out of the blue and at short notice. They took everybody by surprise.
	The Department's guidance also states that the local NHS body must also make it clear when the consultation period will end. Full consultation should last for a minimum of 12 weeks. In their headlong rush to cut services, the PCTs are determined that consultation should last only five weeks, but I can see no justification for that. Moreover, the PCTs are also threatening us. The chief executive of the West Gloucestershire PCT told  The Citizen newspaper on23 May:
	"We have no option but to speed up our plans to change services...Every month that goes by without savings being made increases the level of savings required later in the year."
	That is blackmail, pure and simple. It is not acceptable to me or to my constituents to say that more services will be cut if we demand a proper consultation period. I hope that the Minister will spell out the Government's view of the matter, as I am sure that the PCT will take note of it. Does she agree that the people of the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire are entitled to a consultation process of at least 12 weeks, or does she support the blackmail strategy adopted by the PCTs?
	I wanted to talk about whether the changes are "substantial"—a description used but not defined in the relevant regulations. I do not have time to go into detail, but some of the proposal headings deal with changes in service accessibility, the impact on the wider community and especially on transport, the number of patients affected and the method of service delivery. I therefore contend that the proposed changes are indeed substantial.
	In addition, I want to put it on record that if the overview and scrutiny committee considers that the proposal is not in the interests of the health service in its area, it may refer the decision to the Secretary of State. If the consultation process lasts only a meagre five weeks, I strongly urge the committee to do just that.
	The NHS guidance also says that, when the overview and scrutiny committee considers whether a proposal is in the interest of the local health service, it should also consider the extent to which patients, the public and stakeholders more widely have been involved in planning and development. Only by securing full involvement activity will an NHS body be able to take a considered view of whether its plans are in the interests of the health service for which it is responsible. I contend that so far, none of that activity has taken place.
	One other aspect is worth mentioning. The Minister will know that existing PCTs will be dissolved in September this year—a fact that does not exactly promote long-term thinking, as existing board members and senior managers will, understandably, be worried about their future. I, and a number of my hon. Friends, would prefer such decisions to be taken by the people who will be around to implement them and deal with their impact. They should not be taken by people who will be able to wash their hands of the whole thing in September and move on to something else.
	The Department has answered my parliamentary questions by confirming that the new PCT to be established in Gloucestershire from 1 October will not be bound by any decisions that have not been implemented by that date. I think that it would be better to wait, and I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether she and the Government agree.
	It is worth spending a little time on explaining why the cuts, especially to the community hospitals, have generated such anger in the Forest of Dean. Local people feel a tremendous sense of ownership of their hospitals, and for a very good reason. Both hospitals have friends organisations that have raised tremendous sums, and that money has been spent on new equipment and on financing new buildings. When the PCT threatens to close hospitals that have been built, at least in part, by the community's own efforts, there is justifiable anger.
	I do not have time to go into tremendous detail, but it is worth noting that the friends of Lydney hospital have raised about £840,000 since 1990. The money has been spent on equipment for the hospital, and in several instances has contributed to significant hospital building. When the A and E department was built the friends contributed £225,000, and when GP beds were being developed the friends contributed £280,000. The community truly views that hospital as its own, and views with anger the proposal to close it.
	Gloucestershire's share of health funding is only 88 per cent. of the national average. The demand for health care in Gloucestershire does not reflect that. The change in the formula in 1997 increased the weighting for deprivation and reduced the weighting for the age of the population. I do not expect that to be fixed now, or even that the Minister will comment, but it is useful to put down this marker for the 2007 comprehensive spending review, when it can be addressed.
	A delegation of GPs from my constituency came to see me yesterday after they had a meeting with Lord Warner at the Department of Health. They are working on a set of alternative proposals for the Forest. I understand that the proposals were of great interest to the Minister. However, if we do not slow down this headlong rush to cuts, it will be too late to implement those proposals, because some of the facilities will already have been closed.
	Yesterday, when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leigh replied to the debate on community hospitals, he said,
	"People want services to be available closer to where they live, and they want health and social care to become more seamless with more personalised and integrated care."
	He continued:
	"the White Paper laid out clearly our intention to move toward more local and community provision."
	It seems to me that the proposals of the primary care trust move in the opposite direction.
	The Minister also said:
	"It is incumbent upon every one of us, as leaders in our communities, to lead that debate"—
	that is, the well-informed debate called for by the NHS Confederation. I am pleased to have played my small part today in holding this one. He also said that during the summer a statement would be made about the amount of capital that the Government would make available for new community facilities. It would be criminal if that statement was made after the facilities in Gloucestershire had already been cut.
	In response to the hon. Member for Stroud, the Minister said that the Government were planning
	"an announcement on the White Paper in due course, which will apply to all kinds of services...it will cover the breadth of services. We want PCTs to look carefully at the White Paper; it is not just words, and we want them to see clearly the direction of travel and provide the kind of services that his constituents and mine want on the ground."— [Official Report, 24 May 2006;Vol. 446, c.511-513.]
	I agree with that, but if the Minister who is here today wants that vision to take shape in Gloucestershire, it is not enough to say the words; she needs to act.
	At the moment the primary care trusts are heading in the opposite direction. By the time the Government make any announcement, the cuts will have been made. I urge the Minister to intervene and send a clear instruction to the strategic health authority and the primary care trust to stop, listen and think again. If she does that, she will have my thanks and that of my hon. Friends. If not, the people of the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire will not forgive her, or this Labour Government.

David Drew: As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said yesterday, the key criteria set out in the document of 16 February, "Moving care closer to home", will be used to assess the value and viability of community hospitals. We want more detail about those proposals and I agree with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) that we should not rush them. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether payment by results will be taken into account? That will be crucial in judging the viability of community hospitals, and indeed of the maternity unit in my constituency.